Reply
Sun 3 Jun, 2007 06:44 pm
1. Kucinich
2. Edwards
3. O'bama
I missed it. Any details?
Did anybody have a breakout moment?
didnt see it.
bookmarking.
No transcript online yet that I've been able to find.
C'mon Dys, details!
1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Biden
4. clinton
5. Dodd
6. Kucinich
7. Richardson
8. The old guy on the left
snood wrote:1. Obama
2. Edwards
3. Biden
4. clinton
5. Dodd
6. Kucinich
7. Richardson
8. The old guy on the left
Old guy on the left=Mike Gravel
OK, then SNOOD, details!
This seems to have a fair amount of quotes:
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Democratic_hopefuls_face_off_in_New_0603.html
I like the 4 1/2 years too late quote, I think. (What was Edwards' position at that point? I don't remember.)
Quote:Former Sen. Mike Gravel, D-Alaska, said he would use the former president [Bill Clinton] as a roving ambassador.
"He'd be good," Gravel said. "He can take his wife with him, who will still be in the Senate."
Heh..!
More here, with videos too:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/03/nh.debate.main/
"Four of these people here will say it's George Bush's war, it was facilitated by the Democrats," said long-shot candidate Mike Gravel, indicting his competitors' qualification to have any moral authority on the Iraq War. Gravel later said his competitors lacked 'moral judgment.'
Rep. Dennis Kucinich agreed.
"This war belongs to the Democratic Party because the Democrats were put in charge by the people in the last election with the thought that they were going to end the war. Well, they haven't," he said.
paraphrase here;
Clinton said she had all the information she needed to vote for the authorizing of the Iraq invasion but Bush didn't live up to his promisse to continue inspections; Edwards responded by saying he also had all the information he needed and made the wrong decision.
I seem to remember that Obama signaled several weeks early he would vote for the funding without a withdrawal date. Don't know about some of the others on that. But, let's say there was not a major tension in the air that the dems would hold their course.
I do understand we have troups on the ground, and oh so much else in built environment. But outrage at the administration failure to change course seemed missing, to me. Obama did vote against the invasion in the first place, and I can understand his position, if disappointed in his outrage level recently..
On the other hand, I don't read everything...
The old guy Gravel dont stand a chance so he's settled for telling the truth and making sense. A dirty job.
On TNR's The Plank they seem to roughly think that
- Obama did OK.. perhaps the best of the lot, if not in any conspicuous way
- Hillary - mixed opinions. Fairly good or mostly bland. Hasnt hurt herself (much), anyway
- Edwards - somewhere between not so good and grating
- Dodd, Biden - noteworthy second-tier pluses
- Gravel - fairly nuts
- Richardson - and this was the one thing each and every blogger and reader seemed to chime in on: an absolute, utter failure
Mind you, you have to take that in the context of TNR's editorial line, which nowadays is mostly on the centrist/"New Democrat" wing of the party. Leftists they're not.
ossobuco wrote:I seem to remember that Obama signaled several weeks early he would vote for the funding without a withdrawal date.
He voted against, I think - Hillary too.
1. Edwards
2. Richardson
3. Obama
4. Clinton
In no particular order. I would be satisfied and feel confident in the abilities of any of the above.
Richardson / Edwards would be a great ticket, IMO. A newer guy with someone that has some diplomatic experience. Same with a Richardson / Obama ticket.
I dunno. Biden seems too entrenched, inside.
nimh wrote:ossobuco wrote:I seem to remember that Obama signaled several weeks early he would vote for the funding without a withdrawal date.
He voted against, I think - Hillary too.
Yeah - this from the Prospect blog:
Quote:John Edwards took the first direct shots at fellow candidates .., on the subject of the war supplemental vote -- he said the way in which Obama and Clinton handled the vote illustrated the difference between "being a leader and being a follower" (those two fell in the latter category). Of course, as Edwards had to acknowledge, both Clinton and Obama voted against the post-veto supplemental bill that lacked a withdrawal timetable, so his criticism is reduced to the complaint that they cast that vote "quietly." This seems ... thin.
BTW, the debate aired on CNN and will now be debated there for the remainder of the evening if you want to catch clips.
Also from
Tapped, the Prospect's blog - health care!:
Quote:MANDATES! The subject's now health care, and Obama spoke explicitly in defense of his plan's lack of an individual mandate element to it. This was discussed quite a bit on the site last week, and in fact we'll have another piece on the subject published tomorrow. (As you might have guessed, TAP Online's recent emphasis on individual health insurance mandates is indeed part of a conscious strategy to boost the sexiness and broad appeal of the site.)
<chuckles>
Quote:Obama and Edwards had a fairly substantive exchange on the issue, and then two others made helpful contributions: Clinton made a welcome reaffirmation that her role in the 1993 health-care bid will not hinder her interest in pushing for a universal plan if she were elected (whether she's the person best positioned to make that case, given the history, is a different question); then, Kucinich said this whole mandate issue is beside the point and everyone's ignoring the fact that single-payer is obviously the best answer.
UPDATE: Clinton's targeting of the insurance and pharma lobbies in her discussion of the political dynamics of this issue deserves particular praise here.
blueflame1 wrote:The old guy Gravel dont stand a chance so he's settled for telling the truth and making sense. A dirty job.
Yeah, that's the way I read him too.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace